Question · asked by 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Abscess remedy (AR): Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

Population
Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged 6-14 years
Intervention
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing
Comparison
Abscess remedy (AR)
Outcome
Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success)

A single RCT found higher pulpotomy success with MTA than abscess remedy (100% vs 80%; statistically significant, P<0.05; not pooled; ungraded).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Abscess remedy (AR)
Clinical and radiographic success · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged… · 3 to 24 months, Pediatric dental clinic (India)
A single RCT found higher pulpotomy success with MTA than abscess remedy (100% vs 80%; statistically significant, P<0.05; not pooled; ungraded).
Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2019) All outcomes
Single RCT (Eppa 2018, 3-arm; 20 MTA and 20 AR teeth): MTA 100% (20/20) vs abscess remedy 80% (16/20) clinical and radiographic success; the 4 abscess-remedy failures occurred at 3 months; difference statistically…1 study · 40 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
2019 All outcomes
Inception to October 20185Critically Low / Critically Low

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.